Jewish Supremists have been doing this for centuries covertly. They make lists and hand them off to covert thugs who attack the people on the lists; and they often attack their children as well (see Gaza for evidence of this). This species of vigilantism is a major factor in the downfall of the West. Toadies are promoted (see US Congress for evidence of this), while talented people who can recognize patterns and are neither greedy nor afraid to speak are destroyed. Another point on those vigilante lists is any JS can put anyone on them. Dude scores a girl you want, put him on the list. Some guy in your class is smarter than you, put him on the list. This is always the deeply evil result of vigilante lists. The org in the video above is a public face, a sanitized version, of this ancient covert phenomenon. Even still it is chilling. Imagine anyone openly doing something like this to Jews. ABN
Sepehr has produced many interesting videos, some of which I post. They can be controversial, but that is a plus in my view. Our ancient past needs to be rethought and reimagined. We all come from somewhere, all of us are mixtures, but human groups did and still do differ enormously. These differences are very often reflected in cultural norms across the world. The more realistic we are about the past and the present, the better. Today’s cascade of genetic information seems to be getting reasonably sifted through to yield solid new insights. My main friendly criticism of Sepehr’s work is he puts himself in his videos so often, some of them are unwatchable (for me) even though the content is otherwise worthy. He has risen to prominence quickly, so maybe putting himself in there has been a good PR idea. I really mean this as friendly, respectful criticism only. ABN
The latest report from Amnesty International, “I Was Someone Else’s Property,” reveals a harrowing reality: at least 53 scam compounds across Cambodia have become hubs of modern slavery, human trafficking, torture, and forced labor. These compounds, often disguised as legitimate tech parks or business centers, are operated by transnational criminal networks with apparent impunity. Victims – lured by fake job ads – are imprisoned, abused, and coerced into defrauding people worldwide through online scams. The report documents how these operations are enabled by systemic corruption, weak law enforcement, and a lack of political will to dismantle the criminal infrastructure.
Drone footage of a scamming compound in Cambodia with high perimeter walls, security cameras and security guards
While Taiwanese citizens are not the largest group affected, they face unique and severe risks due to their international status. In recent raids, dozens of Taiwanese nationals were arrested, and many were wrongly identified as perpetrators rather than victims of trafficking. Without proper screening procedures, these individuals are often treated as criminals and, in some cases, forcibly extradited to China, where they face prosecution and detention under Beijing’s jurisdiction. Taiwan’s lack of formal diplomatic ties with Cambodia further complicates rescue efforts, leaving victims vulnerable and without recourse.
The situation is further exacerbated by the demographics of the victims. Many are extremely young, including minors, who are deceived by fraudulent job advertisements on social media platforms. These ads promise glamorous lifestyles and high-paying, easy work in Southeast Asia. Upon arrival, however, these individuals are stripped of their documents, confined under armed guard, and subjected to physical and psychological abuse. Surveillance systems, armed guards, and barbed wire fences make escape nearly impossible. The betrayal of their aspirations and the trauma of captivity leave lasting scars that are often overlooked in public discourse.
Amnesty International’s findings underscore the Cambodian government’s failure – and in some cases, complicity – in addressing these crimes. The lack of enforcement and accountability has emboldened criminal syndicates, allowing a billion-dollar shadow economy to flourish. Victims are often denied access to justice, and the absence of transparent investigations perpetuates a cycle of impunity.
Cambodian scam parks are a significant factor in the Thai-Cambodia conflict, serving as both a source of economic tension and a strategic target in the ongoing military clashes. The conflict, which reignited in December 2025 after a brief ceasefire brokered by the Trump administration, has seen Thailand conduct air strikes on at least five Cambodian casinos and resorts, which are widely believed to house scam operations These strikes are viewed by Thai officials and the public as a response to the perception that these facilities are hubs for cross-border online scams, which have generated billions of dollars annually and involved widespread human trafficking, forced labor, and torture of victims from Asia, Africa, and Latin America The Thai military’s targeting of these sites is seen as both a security measure and a political signal to the Thai public, demonstrating action against a major perceived threat
The economic stakes are high, as these scam centers are believed to be linked to powerful Cambodian political elites, including the Hun family, and are a major source of illicit revenue Thailand’s proposed legalization of casinos near the border threatens to undermine this lucrative system by reducing the need for money laundering through Cambodian casinos and cutting into their earnings This economic competition, combined with the political fallout from a leaked phone call between Thailand’s acting Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodia’s former Prime Minister Hun Sen, has further inflamed tensions The conflict has also been exacerbated by nationalist sentiments on both sides, with the Thai government using the issue to rally public support and Cambodia’s leadership potentially leveraging the conflict to distract from domestic socio-economic challenges
The speaker in the video is Cao Changqing (曹長青), a prominent Chinese dissident, writer, and commentator known for his outspoken criticism of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).This clip features a common argument in anti-CCP dissident circles, comparing the CCP’s historical concessions on territories like Outer Mongolia (citing Guo Moruo’s article) to its fixation on Taiwan—not for territorial reasons, but because Taiwan’s democratic system exposes the authoritarian nature of the CCP regime.Cao frequently appears in exile media and online videos discussing similar themes.
The Taiwan issue actually has nothing to do with the question of unification or independence. Because after the Communist Party seized power, it gave up territory exceeding more than 50 Taiwans. Just Outer Mongolia alone is already roughly 50 Taiwans. At the time when the Communist Party abandoned Outer Mongolia, Guo Moruo was the president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Mao Zedong’s personal literati. He even wrote an article in the People’s Daily titled “Why We Should Cheer for the Independence of Outer Mongolia.” You can still find that article online. So, if you add in things like the Northeast, it might exceed 100 Taiwans—no exaggeration. Yes, and territories disputed with Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Vietnam—all of them were completely abandoned by the Communist Party. Therefore, the Taiwan issue is not a territorial problem, nor is it about unification or independence, and it’s not about economics or technology either. The only reason the Communist Party wants to take Taiwan is because Taiwan’s very existence highlights the evil of the Communist Party’s dictatorship.
During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.
The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target.
In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].
Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus. It is not just isolated to Brown University.
Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.
Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.
This video is from 2021 and well illustrates my point. The children, ages 8-12, are being detained for picking flowers and wild vegetables near their homes. That alone will affect them emotionally, but how many of them are going to be lobotomized? Not saying that has happened to these kids, but psychosurgery is a very simple way to subdue an entire population if enough of the children and young people are maimed. Put on your strongest realist hat and realize how effective this strategy is, especially when done over several generations. I bet there are few authoritarian states with hated minorities who are not doing this. ABN
The advantage of seeing humans as networks is we can say interesting things about them parsimoniously.
A network is an organization of parts that are all connected.
Humans are networks of language. It is quite easy to see that language is a kind of network. Words connect in many ways and any word can be added to an existing network without difficulty. One word is defined by other words and we understand how it is used by how it functions among other words.
Humans are networks of semiotics. Semiotics function and are networked much like words, though a single semiotic may require many words to describe.
Meaning or what things mean is another network that is a fundamental part of being human. Meaning can be expressed in words, it can be apprehended through semiotic analyses, and it very often has a strong emotional component.
Emotions are another network that is fundamental to humanness. Emotions are often not as easily analyzed as the other networks since they can be vague, changeable, and based on complexities that are difficult to see while the emotion is happening. I am pretty sure that most, if not all, complex emotions are socially determined. Since semiotics are by definition communicative, the emotional aspect of all semiotics is a major aspect of both the semiotic and emotional networks. For this reason, emotions are often best analyzed through their accompanying semiotics.
Humans also have biological networks, perceptual networks, chemical and electrical networks.
All of these networks are hooked up with each other and all of them send signals internally and to the other networks.
If we conceive of a single human being as being a vast network that includes all of the above mentioned networks and others that have not been mentioned (aesthetic, gustatory, sexual, etc.), we can see that that vast network that is all of the other networks must have a basic need to be unified.
The biology must cohere and be healthy and the mind and feelings that exist together with that biology must be unconfused enough to guide the biology toward what it needs to maintain itself.
The cognitive networks (language, semiotics, feeling, reason, etc.) must have a strong tendency to forming basic conclusions about the world around them.
For example, all humans live in fundamentally uncertain circumstances. We don’t know when we will die, what happens after we die, how stable our social lives are, our economics, our biology, and so forth. To function, our cognitive network(s) must have a basic answer to the question of uncertainty. Here are some ways that people answer or respond to the fundamentally uncertain nature of human existence:
Many just declare that this is how it is. People like this might say, “Life is tough and you gotta do what you gotta do ’cause that’s how it is.” Or, “I growed up poor so I gots to be rich now and that just how it is.”Answers of this sort, while not complex, can be very motivating. I am sure that many conventionally “successful” people deal with uncertainty on terms like these.
For many, religion, science, or philosophy answers this question. “God said so.” “Science has shown that.” “Do as thou wilt.”
Another common response is “No one has ever been able to answer that question, so I am going to ignore it and get all I can because you only live once.”
In my limited experience (wish it were more limited), a good many alcoholics love the feeling of being sure or of knowing how things are. Booze activates an easy confidence of this sort and can even be charming in an occasional drunk. By the time booze is an addiction, though, this form of confidence becomes a bad habit, declining in charm as the cognitive functions are eroded by the alcohol.
In cultures that have a belief in rebirth, the question of uncertainty is often answered by what happened in the past or resolved by what might happen in the next life.
Some people deal with this question by focusing entirely on one thing—their career, their children, their nation, their business, etc.
Some deal with it by facing it and finding that nearly everything produces a sense of wonder because hardly anything is known for sure. Others feel anxiety by facing it. Others anger or frustration.
I am sure that readers can add many more examples of how humans deal with fundamental existential uncertainty. What I find most interesting in thinking in this way is you don’t need to imagine a person’s ego or wonder too much about how or why their emotions developed as they did. You really just need to ask them how they deal with uncertainty and they will tell you.
The vast cognitive and biological networks of individual humans often can be understood as being based on a simple answer to a simple question like that.
Since psychological explanations are the coin of the realm today, many people will confuse themselves and others by further adding long stories about the development of their personality or how their parents treated them. These factors can be interesting and are real, to a point, but it is much simpler and more profitable to focus directly at the answer/response to the basic question of life’s uncertainty. A major bias or unifying principle of the human network can be found in a straightforward answer to that question.
Beyond this basic question discussed above, there are many other questions we can ask about a particular human network. Is the network closed or is it open? Is it complex or simple? Is it independent of social definitions/constraints or dependent on them? How well does it see itself, understand itself? Does it perceive other networks or does it see other people as two-dimensional aspects of its own network? Is it willing to interface with other human networks in complex ways or only in simple conventional or established ways? Is it secretive? Does it see the vastness of the networks outside and beyond itself? Does it see how it is connected to them?
The advantage of analyzing humans as networks is it avoids many of the ambiguities of psychological analysis. Rather than focus on such dubious concepts as personality, ego, the subconscious, or self, a network analysis simply asks how is the network functioning. From a network point of view, a personality or self is little more than a focal point, a unifying principle that provides an illusion of certainty where there need not be one and cannot really be one. A human can function perfectly well without an ego, self, or well-defined personality. Indeed, there is greater stability in seeing yourself as a complex network that is always open to analysis and always willing to add or remove parts as they show themselves to be either good or bad.
After basic network questions have been asked and answered, I think the best starting point for a more detailed analysis is an examination of semiotics and how they are functioning in the individual’s life, and especially in their communications with others. This is best done through FIML practice.
In this context, as in so many, it is important to remember that humans are entry-level conscious semiotic animals. As such, we are prone to processing semiotics with the abrupt and often violent instincts of animals. A network approach provides specificity (what semiotic are we talking about), malleability (oh, I didn’t mean that), an appreciation for the functionality of network nodes, what they are doing and how or why. Since FIML partners have a prior agreement to do analyses of this sort, it is fairly easy for them to segue from ordinary conversation to analysis of that conversation and then back to the ordinary conversation.
The actual purpose of a creed is to provide a doctrinal statement of correct belief or orthodoxy. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of particular doctrines. For that reason, a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον (symbolon), which originally meant half of a broken object which, when fitted to the other half, verified the bearer’s identity.[9] The Greek word passed through Latin symbolum into English “symbol”, which only later took on the meaning of an outward sign of something. (link)
Someone sent this to me, believing I might find it interesting which I do.
Our word symbol started out as a very concrete concept. It makes sense that it would come from something more basic than itself and with a much narrower meaning.
It’s also quite beautiful that a symbol only works as intended when it connects more or less as intended with the mind of its receiver(s). As with a symbolon, all symbols that work must have at least two functioning halves, a sender and a receiver.
This is a basic part of the definition of semiotics; that a message always has a sender and receiver, though in semiotics it is well-recognized that the receiver often receives the message differently than the sender intended.
If a symbol falls in the woods and no one perceives it is it still a symbol?
American Buddhist Net 